(I’m still not happy with my vlogging attempts so far, btw. If anyone has some ideas as to how to improve them, I’d be happy to hear them. [Anyone else find it immensely awkward to talk to a computer screen?] )

But yesterday I offered some passing thoughts regarding Rollins, who is far more interested in the present-day manifestations of resurrection-living in faith communities, than in the historical facts of the resurrection itself. (Which sounds Marcus Borgish, and it kinda is, but I think his objectives are quite different.) I wondered what the implications were for his take on resurrection for missional church behavior, and I tried to summarize his take on the relationship between faith and doubt in comparison to my own. By comparison Jones makes a case for a physical resurrection, not by prooftexting or using apologetics, but by talking about what makes a story about a physical resurrection compelling, fitting, and beautiful. In many ways, their positions well summarize the two primary so-called “postmodern” approaches to Christian philosophy today, although the divide is not nearly as dramatic as it was in the modern era.

When we say “I love God,” is this really what we mean?

Today, in contrast, I want to mention where I particularly resonate with Rollins, and then talk a bit about (what else?) faith. Follow me, beyond the jump.

Apparently I’m trying to combine as many things that make me appear pathetic at the same time as possible. Hmm…Maybe one of our parishioners who saw me yesterday was right when they chortled that I must have somehow subconsciously willed myself to injury, for the sake of attention-getting.

(Actually I got to thinking that maybe, whenever we share ideas and opinions online, we should choose some sort of position of humility from which to type/make videos. Maybe if we were all supine, or prostrate, when we submitted our thoughts, we all wouldn’t be so quick to feel superior or judgmental, and remind us that our capacities are ultimately limited and broken. But I digress…)

Yesterday for Easter, Revolution in NYC hosted Peter Rollins and Tony Jones, presently two of the most influential voices in emerging/progressive/post-evangelical/etc. circles. The two “debated” (loosely defined) the meaning and hope of resurrection, and luckily for us, the entire thing was recorded. If you have 40 minutes or so today/tomorrow, be sure to check it out. It’s a great summary of what I perceive to be two of the most pertinent and commonplace positions in postmodern Christian philosophy.

[For those who want to know, it’s the postanalytic philosophical world now largely represented by Alasdair Macintyre as well as others, and the theistic turn in Continental postmodernity articulated, among others, by the followers of the noted deconstructionist Jacques Derrida. I throw this in just to say that, while many of you might listen to Jones and Rollins and immediately try to fit them into conservative/liberal camps, the divide between the two of them really isn’t as clear as one might think, and while there are similarities, the goals of the new philosophical conversation are quite different from the goals of the more typical modern (read: pre-post-modern) debate. ]

So today, you can take a look at my short(ish) response to the conversation, which is largely a 1) question and a 2) thought re: Rollins’ perspective (not to pick on him unfairly; considering that he could do gymnastics around me, intellectually-speaking… and considering that he has in fact helped me a great deal, despite limited exposure, to articulate my own thoughts).

Tomorrow (hopefully) I will share some more thoughts. Until then, be sure to check out the audio, and (so long as you promise not to find me too pitiful) video below: